Barber v. State, 2014 Ark. 179

In 2013, Tommy Martez Barber pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 480 months; in exchange the State dropped three other felony charges.
Barber filed a timely, verified pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and other defects relating to his plea.
At an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied Barber’s Rule 37.1 petition; Barber appealed and moved in this Court for appointment of counsel.
Barber primarily claimed his trial counsel misadvised him about parole eligibility (he says counsel told him he would serve 8–10 years; counsel allegedly failed to explain the 70% service requirement).
At the hearing counsel introduced a chart and testified she discussed the 70% eligibility requirement; the trial court credited counsel’s testimony over Barber’s.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded Barber could not prevail on appeal and dismissed the appeal; the motion for appointed counsel was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for allegedly misinforming Barber about parole eligibility	Barber: counsel told him he would serve 8–10 years and did not inform him of the 70% rule, inducing the plea	State: counsel prepared materials and testified she informed Barber of the 70% requirement; trial court credited counsel	Court: Denied relief — trial court not clearly erroneous in crediting counsel; no ineffective assistance shown
Whether counsel’s failure to provide discovery undermined voluntariness of plea	Barber: lack of discovery meant plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered	State: plea-on-the-record standard controls; failure to provide discovery does not show plea involuntariness	Court: Denied — guilty plea review focuses on voluntariness and competent advice; discovery complaint insufficient
Whether sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims are cognizable in Rule 37.1	Barber argued evidence was weak and would not sustain conviction	State: sufficiency challenges are not cognizable in Rule 37.1 collateral proceedings	Court: Dismissed that argument as not cognizable in postconviction relief
Whether appointment of counsel on appeal should be granted	Barber requested appointed counsel for his Rule 37.1 appeal	State: appeal fails on the merits so appointment unnecessary	Court: Motion for appointment moot because appeal dismissed as meritless

Sartin v. State, 400 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. 2012) (standard for reviewing postconviction factual findings)
Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (Ark. 2007) (discussing Strickland standard in Arkansas context)
Harrison v. State, 404 S.W.3d 830 (Ark. 2012) (presumption counsel’s conduct is within reasonable professional assistance)
Abernathy v. State, 386 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2012) (objective reasonableness standard for counsel’s performance)
Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. 2006) (prejudice inquiry includes sentencing prejudice from counsel errors)
Buchheit v. State, 6 S.W.3d 109 (Ark. 1999) (distinguishing cases where counsel made affirmative misrepresentations about parole)
Tornavacca v. State, 408 S.W.3d 727 (Ark. 2013) (trial court as factfinder: credibility determinations)
Scott v. State, 406 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2012) (sufficiency challenges not cognizable in Rule 37.1)
Sandoval-Vega v. State, 384 S.W.3d 508 (Ark. 2011) (postconviction review of guilty pleas confined to voluntariness and competent advice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 894 F.2d 1009 (8th Cir. 1990) (habeas relief where counsel made affirmative misrepresentations about parole eligibility)